Linking under fields

GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

Next year around mid February, there is an upcoming event/test, which includes linking under fields


'13-15 February: “Link to Your Heart” (#IngressValentines)

  • Links shorter than 10km in length can be created under Fields'


Linking under fields is a hot discussion.

I'm personally against long links under fields, even for this event, 10km long is huge!

1km is more than adequate if you are unable to take down BAFs.

There still needs to be incentive to take down BAFs, I'm in that category where I enjoy going out of the way to take down said links.

Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • In some rural parts of the world, portals can be well over 10km apart.

    Not everybody lives in portal-dense luxury cities like Stockton, CA.

  • Nothing is stopping you from taking big fields down.

    The incentive doesn't need to be provided by the game.

  • Always something to whinge about, @Grogyan ? Lol, this isnt Catan ;)

    10km limit is great

    At least they learnt from matroshyka event

  • kiloecholimakiloecholima ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree, 10 km is too long. I think somewhere between 3-5km would be about right. Glad to see Niantic didn't go wild west this time though.

  • KonnTowerKonnTower ✭✭✭✭✭

    I appreciate they listened and started adding a limitation on distance.

    I hope moving forward they can create a scaling distance based on the average distance to the nearest XXX portals. Like I've said from the start, it should be based on portal density to help scale to adjust for rural vs. urban locations.

    At least this is a good start!

  • Otrera35Otrera35 ✭✭✭✭

    I don't know if the said event will motivate me enough to go out and field. Initially, the thought of having an RBB looked promising and brought that tiny spark in fielding again. Then, learned that RBB can't be flipped. The spark got extinguished immediately. Would rather stay at home and read a NY Times bestseller book.

  • 10 km feels just right if you want to build HCF7+ in not so portal-dense areas.

  • KarM3LKarM3L ✭✭✭✭

    They should remove the flips from the vrbb then they might actually get used for there intention of increased game play...

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think what they have done with the RBB is about right, as the VRBB being available to Recursed players is a good trade off

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    In my city, 10km stretches across the entire city with ease.

    Which can interfere with other fielding plans

  • MoogModularMoogModular ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would imagine there's not a lot of MU to grab? 10 km seems sufficient here when looking at anything about the playing field.

    You also have 2 months to plan out anchors that aren't less than 10 km from one another 😉

  • PkmnTrainerJPkmnTrainerJ ✭✭✭✭✭

    I like that it’s being tested again, some agents are stuck under perma-fields that they may be unable to take down, so at least they can play a bit more in their local area with this.

  • Otrera35Otrera35 ✭✭✭✭

    Then we all wonder why Ingress Prime is unable to retain newbies out there. Oh well at least in other games you can see real progress....

  • Otrera35Otrera35 ✭✭✭✭

    If you live in a rural area, you are lucky if you get 30K. Not everyone lives in a city like New York or San Francisco.

  • Otrera35Otrera35 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2021

    Removing the ability to duplicate keys does not deter perma-BAFs because there are still multi-account users, bot networks out there. How does a handful of newbies ever stand a chance against a huge rival faction without a supportive team behind them? Fix the main issues and don't use bandaids to cover them up.

    Post edited by Otrera35 on
  • It's great, will see what will happen. It's seems to be a good improvement of Matrioska.

  • mortuusmortuus ✭✭✭✭✭

    I still think dynamic decay is the key to those fields, the longer up the more it costs to keep it up, or just make it possible that ucan link under fields but with a penalty to mu gained perhaps its unfair that a few players can block everyone from playing with those fields i never saw the point keeping those up once u got your onyx it doesnt really change things as the winner in cells doesnt win anything only bragging rights.... and usually many anchor portals are those that someone has been once and never needed to go back as u can dupe keys so easy... also a thing maybe remove keps from mufg dupe ? uwant keys? go to the portal...

  • ArtilectZedArtilectZed ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2022

    I've often thought that portal decay tick frequency should be increased based on how many fields are hanging off of it, and how long those fields have been up. I say this as someone who used to smother areas in large areas. It kills the game.

  • GrogyanGrogyan ✭✭✭✭✭

    Niantic is actually working on a the balance for linking under fields.


    Come Feb 14th you will be able to link under fields for a couple of days, up to 10km.

    Whilst I support the idea of linking under fields, I also enjoy travelling to build and smash BAFs. There are a lot of people who enjoy "the big game"


    As a permanent option, not so keen, even at 10km limit, this limit would have to be between 2-3km. Any longer risks the game failing, as there is no incentive to take down fields of any meaningful size.

  • OmnyPresenceOmnyPresence ✭✭
    edited February 2022

    Linking under a BAF is a simple change that doesn't really impact BAF play. Other things I've thought about to improve new player experience (that are more controversial):

    1) Scoring. This is tricky and more controversial as scoring affects everyone. That said, make the scoring cells larger and dynamic (i.e. the boundaries of a cell changes periodically). This would encourage BAF play to move to different areas. You would still have people who throw the same BAF over and over but their argument of "winning" becomes invalid if the boundaries of a cell changes. You could even keep the current cells for a local scoreboard like a top 20 players from each side.

    2) Decay. I think decay should be accelerated by portals with large fields/links. I also think portals on a BAF should have an instability factor (i.e. after an hour there's a probability the 7 lowest level resonators (or all but the highest resonator from the person who captured the portal) will become unstable and blow up), and every hour there after the probability increases slightly. This will have BAF's come down sooner while still allowing them to stay up for checkpoints. It also forces macro play agents to play harder while giving them more opportunities to throw different fields without having to wait for opposing teams to take them down.

    3) Field Display Toggle in the scanner. Specifically the ability to hide all large fields in the scanner. Anyone who has tried playing under a 20+ layer BAF knows what I'm talking about. Horrific new user experience. The problem is only amplified if/when linking under fields is allowed.

    4) Encourage destruction of BAF: Encourage players to travel and destroy BAFs and make the BAF play a competition again. Ideas might be Medals for MU destroyed or tie it to scoring. If a field comes down from decay, nothing affects scoring. But if you destroy a field, maybe you earn both AP and half the original MU gained.

    Again, there are no perfect solutions that will make everyone happy. However, there should be changes to make the new user experience better as well as to challenge experienced players who throw BAFs. (Newbie zones vs high level dungeons.)

  • SSSputnikSSSputnik ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm a fence sitter on linking under fields.

    If it was to become a permanent "thing" I'd much prefer to see how it plays out for a month or so with Niantic ready to roll it back if uproar ensues.

    I also think it should be a toggle setting on Niantic side for events etc. (ie Link/play control for anomaly events).

    We had perma BAF for a while here, (own faction) till eventually enough of the team had enough and the BAFfers relented.

    Now they only BAF when/if we want control/points and it's dropped pretty quickly most of the time.

    To those that argue "You can always go take it down" - yes - you can, then the people who owned the anchors in many cases WILL go back and put it back. This quickly becomes a war of who has deepest pockets/willing to drive 600km when one of the BAF agents lives in anchor town... It's a losing proposition and why the other team doesn't bother. (In our cases it's two remote islands and a rural country town).

  • gazzas89gazzas89 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I suggested on reddit they set a limit, which a niantic rep said was a good idea and reasonable, but I should have been more specific, I think the link should max at 10km, but be no longer than HALF the smallest link of the field, that would allow play but not be overpowered

  • Creating MU is glorified more in game than destroying it, but killing a BAF *does* help your faction's cell score. Why not introduce a badge for MU destroyed? It would encourage more dynamic play regarding BAFs and feel less thankless for the agents who **** them over and over again. Getting to a hard anchor in time is an accomplishment in and of itself. Lots of agents grind out purifier points without leaving their own zip code. Niantic should recognize MU destruction as its own accomplishment.

    Other common ideas to mitigate BAF lock problems: restricted key dupes, dynamic decay, instancing the game to accommodate different mechanics choose-your-server style (that one might be fun, probably couldn't happen any time soon)

    I am genuinely curious to those who want to link under fields all the time, what is your favorite thing about Ingress?

  • Otrera35Otrera35 ✭✭✭✭

    10 kilometers = 6.2 miles. One can field less than 10 kilometers, meh!

  • I was in the middle of making a Christmas tree field art on 24 December, when I was covered by a large field. Had to wait until 30 December to finish my beautiful tree. Just one of the reasons why I am in favour of linking under/over fields.

Sign In or Register to comment.